Question about dice...

[Annie M]

I think White Moose has it right. A run of bad dice is remembered cuz it evokes strong emotions -- grrrrrrr! -- whereas when you get a run of good dice you're just like - well, its about time i got some fair dice rolls!! I don't believe the dice are streaky - i think they're totally random. as they should be.

[Pedronicus]

I've been here long enough to know that the dice are fucking shit.

If anyone wants to give me some smart arse response, then i suggest you write it on some real paper, roll up that piece of paper up and stick it up your arse.

[oVo]

Questionable dice? All ways and always.
isn't that what keeps the game interesting?

[HellRaisingOzzy]

in 1 of my games, my first shot in the game was 7-3, i won that, but after that i didn get a dice role in my favour, my highest was 12-3 and ai lost that.

[jenticker]

Hello everyone..
I play many games which included dice..
If you have any idea how to get maximum numbers in dice please tell me..
Help anyone..

[Fruitcake]

Hello everyone..
I play many games which included dice..
If you have any idea how to get maximum numbers in dice please tell me..
Help anyone..

I suppose you could always play with yourself....in this I mean with one of your other cc persona

[DIBS]

People just have to stop blaming dice so much. They work as they should for me at least. I get my share of both good and bad dice. But of course the latter is easier to remember, which is why people think they have bad dice all the time.

Though I do believe the dice are streaky.....there is another factor that people don't seem to consider.
There are far more occasions in general play where an unlucky streak can occur compared to a lucky streak.
One rarely attacks a large stack with a much smaller one.....and compared to your average assault in a game, large numbers on both sides are also rare. A typical attack might be 6-12 against a 3 stack. There is no way one can be streaky lucky in this situation....even if one progresses through and into more territories, a lucky streak cannot be achieved as one unit must be left behind each time. On the reverse side, one can definitely be unlucky and lose troop after troop against a smaller force, thus displaying an unlucky streak.

I have found that bombardments certainly help show the lucky streaks as one does not have to leave a unit behind after each success. In most games I never get what I consider a lucky streak.....but in games where I can bombard, I have killed masses of troops with my 6-12 stacks.

I hope I've been able to communicate the concept properly.....because when I realized it, I was a lot more comfortable with the situation(appearing to only ever get bad luck).

[Timminz]

Superstitious bullshit.

[trinicardinal]

Superstitious bullshit.

Too true

[DonohueDominator]

What is the most troops you've had attack a country with 3 and lose? I just lost a 22 v 3 a few minutes ago. In case you were wondering, that's 99.99541% to win.

I also lost a 21 v 6 in the same game which is only a 99.8% favorite but combine the two and that should basically never happen in a game. Now I've never had an issue with the dice, but has there been any research gone into possible "streakyness" of the dice?

Since you are so good at calculating the win percentages, what about 3 different 8 to 1 attacks that all lost. BTW, That was within 4 or 5 turns and the same game.

[seeyabye]

KLOBBER can write for a hour and say absolutely nothing. So much gobaley gook.

[jimboston]

I think the dice are against me.

It's always the dice's fault when I lose.

If it were not for bad dice my rank would be General or maybe Conqueror.

[maniacmath17]

What is the most troops you've had attack a country with 3 and lose? I just lost a 22 v 3 a few minutes ago. In case you were wondering, that's 99.99541% to win.

I also lost a 21 v 6 in the same game which is only a 99.8% favorite but combine the two and that should basically never happen in a game. Now I've never had an issue with the dice, but has there been any research gone into possible "streakyness" of the dice?

Since you are so good at calculating the win percentages, what about 3 different 8 to 1 attacks that all lost. BTW, That was within 4 or 5 turns and the same game.

I may be good at math (just finished my math minor at Johns Hopkins University) but I definitely couldn't calculate those percentages on my own. http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Gambit/BattleOdds

[ljex]

What is the most troops you've had attack a country with 3 and lose? I just lost a 22 v 3 a few minutes ago. In case you were wondering, that's 99.99541% to win.

I also lost a 21 v 6 in the same game which is only a 99.8% favorite but combine the two and that should basically never happen in a game. Now I've never had an issue with the dice, but has there been any research gone into possible "streakyness" of the dice?

Since you are so good at calculating the win percentages, what about 3 different 8 to 1 attacks that all lost. BTW, That was within 4 or 5 turns and the same game.

I may be good at math (just finished my math minor at Johns Hopkins University) I definitely couldn't calculate those percentages on my own. http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Gambit/BattleOdds

what kind of math?

[Krissan]

Seriously, what's with all the dice whining from mediocre to excellent players lately? Is this an inside joke I'm not getting? It seems every second thread in GD is about someone leaving CC because of the dice.

[Robinette]

I may be good at math (just finished my math minor at Johns Hopkins University) I definitely couldn't calculate those percentages on my own. http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/Gambit/BattleOdds

what kind of math?

[maniacmath17]

what kind of math?

The only two minors offered were applied math and pure math, I went with pure. 3.94 GPA in those classes. I wouldn't make the thread if there wasn't something to it.

Statistically speaking, there's some stuff that happens on this site that just wouldn't occur with random dice. Apparently someone lost a 27 v 1 in a game. Odds of that are like 1 in 10 trillion, or roughly once every 100 billion games and we haven't even hit 10 million games yet. In other words, it shouldn't happen again for another 5000 years, but somehow I think it will... just sayin.

[rdsrds2120]

what kind of math?

The only two minors offered were applied math and pure math, I went with pure. 3.94 GPA in those classes. I wouldn't make the thread if there wasn't something to it.

Statistically speaking, there's some stuff that happens on this site that just wouldn't occur with random dice. Apparently someone lost a 27 v 1 in a game. Odds of that are like 1 in 10 trillion, or roughly once every 100 billion games and we haven't even hit 10 million games yet. In other words, it shouldn't happen again for another 5000 years, but somehow I think it will... just sayin.

On that note, everything happens with random dice as we approach infinite rolls, so although that may not seem entirely plausible (I don't agree that it is), it's extremely possible.

My worst dice thing I think was 82v14 lost
That was when I played a lot of games though.

-rd

[maniacmath17]

I'm not sure I understood your phrasing. Are you saying you don't think 27 v 1 is plausible or that it is?

And yes, anything is possible given enough rolls. My point is that we haven't had enough rolls on this site to justify some of the unlikely outcomes that we see.

It's kind of like the notion of walking through walls. Sure there's an extremely small chance that all our atoms jump across the wall. But if you saw someone actually walk through a wall, would you really just chalk it up to the randomness of particle movement or would you suspect something else is afoot?

[Dako]

Odds of 27v1 are low, but it doesn't mean it cannot happen on your 3rd try. It can happen, it does happen and it doesn't break the statistics at all.

[maniacmath17]

Odds of 27v1 are low, but it doesn't mean it cannot happen on your 3rd try. It can happen, it does happen and it doesn't break the statistics at all.

Again, anything "can" happen but these outcomes aren't likely to occur with random dice given the relatively few number of games on this site. Maybe the problem is that people can't grasp how much larger 10 trillion is compared to 10 million.

I'm at a loss to explain it any more clearly. Assuming a 27 v 1 occurs 100 times a game, that means there's been 1 billion 27 v 1 situations on this site.

A 1 in 10 trillion event occurring in just 1 billion trials is not very likely. Billions of dice rolls can't explain why events with odds of 1 in ten trillion keep happening. It DOES "break the statistics"

[Robinette]

Maybe the problem is that people can't grasp how much larger 10 trillion is compared to 10 million.

I'm at a loss to explain it any more clearly. Assuming a 27 v 1 occurs 100 times a game, that means there's been 1 billion 27 v 1 situations on this site.

A 1 in 10 trillion event occurring in just 1 billion trials is not very likely. Billions of dice rolls can't explain why events with odds of 1 in ten trillion keep happening. It DOES "break the statistics"

'sup maniac... we should play a game, for old times sake

[Dako]

Odds of 27v1 are low, but it doesn't mean it cannot happen on your 3rd try. It can happen, it does happen and it doesn't break the statistics at all.

Again, anything "can" happen but these outcomes aren't likely to occur with random dice given the relatively few number of games on this site. Maybe the problem is that people can't grasp how much larger 10 trillion is compared to 10 million.

I'm at a loss to explain it any more clearly. Assuming a 27 v 1 occurs 100 times a game, that means there's been 1 billion 27 v 1 situations on this site.

A 1 in 10 trillion event occurring in just 1 billion trials is not very likely. Billions of dice rolls can't explain why events with odds of 1 in ten trillion keep happening. It DOES "break the statistics"

If you think logically - yeah, that is the case. But you should know that CC rolls

As of June 2010 we process 1,000,000 assaults per day.

It means at least 3mil cubes per day. Assuming 27v1 happens once a months - it is quite ok. And I doubt it can actually happen 10 times a day. Even if it does and we extend the time frame (and number of dice rolls) to ... 1000 years (or you can say infinity) then the statistics will show - yeah, the 1 in trillion happened 1 times in trillion tries, but there is a weird pattern that there was a splash of activity in the 1st year of testing.

Statistics is not about proving what is wrong and what is right - it is just a probability measure and you cannot take it as a ruling - more of an advice.

[jleonnn]

I noticed that lately a lot of CCers have been complaining about dice. A LOT, ok. So for those who have bad dice use dice analyzer found here: viewtopic.php?f=527&t=5655 to see how bad your dice have really been lately. But still, at this rate the population of non-noob CCers will plunge.

[natty dread]

Oh wow, thanks jleonnnnn. What would we do without another dice thread.